Breaking the silence about sexual abuse of deaf youth

American Annals of the Deaf

Volumn 141, Issue 5, 1996, Pages 352-358

  Mertens, Donna M ^a  

^a GALLAUDET UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; FEMALE; HEARING IMPAIRMENT; HUMAN; PSYCHOLOGIC TEST; RAPE;

DEAFNESS; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTERVIEW, PSYCHOLOGICAL; RAPE;

EID: 0030332509     PISSN: 0002726X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1353/aad.2012.0257     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Bickman, L. (Ed.) (1990). Advances in Program Theory. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers.
2. Chen, H. (1994). Theory-driven evaluations: Need, difficulties, and opinions. Evaluation Practice, 15(1), 79-82.
3. Chen, H. (1990). Issues in constructing program theory. In L. Bickman (Ed.) Advances in Program Theory (pp. 7-18). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers.
4. Chen, H., & Rossi, P.H. (1989). Issues in the theory-driven perspective. Evaluation and Program Planning, 12(4), 299-306.
5. Fine, M. (1992). Disruptive voices. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
6. Durkin, R. (1982). No one will thank you: First thoughts on reporting institutional abuse. In R. Hanson (Ed.), Institutional abuse of children and youth. New York: Haworth Press, 109-114.
7. Cuba, E.G., & Lincoln, Y.S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research, pp. 105-117. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
8. Klein, S. (1992). Sex equity and sexuality in education. Albany: State University of New York Press.
9. Lather, P. (1992). Critical frames in educational research: Feminist and post-structural perspectives. Theory into Practice, 31(2), 1-13.
10. Madison, A. (1992). Primary inclusion of culturally diverse minority program participants in the evaluation process. In A. Madison (Ed.), Minority Issues in Program Evaluation. (pp. 35-44). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
11. Mertens, D. M. (1995). Identify and respect differences among participants in evaluation studies. In W. Shadish (Ed.), American Evaluation Association's Guiding Principles, New Directions in Program Evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
12. Mertens, D. M., Farley, J., Madison, A. M., & Singleton, P. (1994). Diverse voices in evaluation practice: Feminists, minorities, and persons with disabilities. Evaluation Practice, 15(2), 123-129.
13. Oliver, M. (1992). Changing the social relations of research production? Disability, Handicap & Society, 7(2), 101-114.
14. Patton, M.Q. (1986). Utilization Focused Evaluation. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications, Inc.
15. Pollard, D.S. (1992). Toward a pluralistic perspective on equity. Women's Education Equity Act Publishing Center Digest. February, pp. 1-2 & 7.
16. Reinharz, S. (1992). Feminist methods in social research. New York: Oxford University Press.
17. Steady, F.C. (1993). Women and collective action. In S.M. James & A.P.A. Busia (Eds.), Theorizing Black Feminisms. London: Routledge, pp. 90-101.
18. Sullivan, P.M., Vernon, M., & Scanlan, J.M. (1987). Sexual abuse of deaf youth. American Annals of the Deaf, 132(4), 256-262.